Considerations on 'Wingers'

3-4-3 or 4-3-3?

I.

As an aspiring analyst developing the age of Guardiola, my affinity for touchline wingers should strike few by surprise. You ask yourself, who are your unstoppable guys, to which the answer is frequently a winger. The next step in the process is to ask how you generate situations where they isolated against defenders to exploit their qualitative superiority. The answer: wide positioning. Teams must remain compact naturally in defensive phases to prevent more direct infiltration. Having dangerous players on the flanks almost balances the spatial equilibrium – you have less dangerous players inside yes, but by virtue of their positioning they pose a greater threat as they are more oriented towards goal and have access to a greater percentage of the pitch upon reception. Equally you have more dangerous players in less dangerous zones, which subsequently makes reception in those zones more worrisome defensively – creating space for the players inside.

However, this perspective is at least partially biased towards a conception of a winger as being somebody whose speciality is dribbling, which suites 1v1’s and space to run into. Ousmane Dembélé, Leroy Sané and Jérémie Boga come to mind as more direct examples of this type of player – whilst the control-oriented profile of Jack Grealish or Riyad Mahrez who have reliable ball retention also seem to be fitting of this characterisation. However, the latter profile is less frequently the ‘unstoppable guy’ in the team, rather I would argue that while their dribbling carries a magnetism which attracts defenders, the purpose of said attraction is typically to generate space for the real ‘unstoppable guys’ who I would argue in this City team are (were with the introduction of Haaland) Kevin De Bruyne and João Cancelo (here I am using the concept of unstoppable guy vaguely to kind of mean difference maker). Dribble forward securely and often correspondingly slowly, gain vertical ground and attract players doubling up to free space in the half-space, both vertically and horizontally for De Bruyne or Cancelo to cross. Regardless, the profile of having a magnetic and dangerous dribbler who occupies the wide forward role and primarily stands on the touchline seems pertinent. In the words of Guardiola: “today, without players who can dribble, nothing can be done”. Through magnetism, they embody the concept of moving the opposition, crucial to creating spaces to exploit.

the twothreefive @TtfFutbol

Pep Guardiola on the importance of expression/players who find space by dribbling:

To continue the rationale behind the dangerous dribbler unstoppable guy, moving the opposition to generate overload to isolate circumstances moreover seems to bias one towards having two dangerous dribblers out on the flanks. Players who can hold the ball, progress, attract defenders, then play the safe pass backwards, but after having gained territory. A switch of play then occurs against the ball-side committed defence, and as the ball moves quicker than the opponent and the wide most far-side area was that sacrificed for compactness, the player will then be isolated to attack space in the final third and seek to generate a chance - Mahrez against Bournemouth for example.

II.

This all makes sense, but the logic of this could feasibly be reversed. A narrow threat makes defences unnaturally compact, generating space for progression potential on the flanks from full backs who can pose a threat with crosses or other benefits that arise from territorial progression. Consider the potential that your unstoppable guy may be a wonderous player maker, somebody with a great first touch and tight link-up, or somebody who possess a great threat in the final third, where you want his actions to be in the most dangerous possible areas.

A player which meets the lattermost criterion is Son Heung-min: This example is particularly pertinent because I would argue he is lacking in 1v1 qualities compared to other wingers of his calibre, whilst moreover not having outstanding link-up, nor playmaking - he doesn't thrive in between the lines, despite being in the half-space - more of a forward than interiour profile. His value is his threat in front of goal. Rather than an abstract concept of what makes an unstoppable guy, it should be the guy himself who makes it unstoppable. While positional play concepts such as unstoppable guys are supposed to describe something that already exists, they can alter your concept of what exists, creating an abstract rigidity around the necessity to have dribbly wide wingers, for example. In the words of Guardiola “Those who have the ability to dribble, should dribble. And those with the ability to shoot, should shoot.” So, while I practically only ever talk about dribbly unstoppable guys, that is because the model of football I most (ironically, Mircosoft Word is suggesting I correct most to must – we are all children of Guardiola) adhere to abstractly suits it rather than anything more, although it is nevertheless difficult for myself at least to not fall into the trap of wanting that ‘ideal’ application everywhere.

Any new manager of Tottenham asking themselves “who are our unstoppable guys” will undoubtedly conclude, Son and Harry Kane. And consequently, how do you build a system which maximises their strengths. You need Son to be narrower in positioning because he lacks touchline qualities, whilst also having him frequently infiltrating space in behind. If you have Son, playing a 2-3-5 positional play system, whilst not impossible, (I would potentially like him as a finisher in overload to isolate situations with a more magnetic far-side winger, wherein, upon the far-side winger receiving (from Son’s perspective) Son can narrow slightly, putting himself in a situation where a couple touches would be enough to generate a shot. Or conversely, when the ball is in the final third with the far-side winger, his narrowing runs, I anticipate often deeper around the penalty spot then pose a threat), it would be suboptimal. It doesn’t maximise his qualities, nor the potential he has with Harry Kane, where detachment centrally would worsen both players as Kane would have fewer opportunities to play dangerous through balls. In positional play terms, there can be a socio-affective element to the tightness between a forward and winger which plays into each other’s qualities (that is not to suggest close positioning is the place where socio-affective connections can be established, but I think it is more prominent). To summarise, you place your unstoppable guy in a narrower area to maximise the opportunities he does have, even if you suppose it will not alter the opponent’s defensive compactness. In principle: you want your most dangerous player in high value areas where they can have the highest impact per touch. The contrast of Jack Grealish at Aston Villa as an interiour style player and Manchester City seems notable, he functions well in both, but you could spot where he was the ‘unstoppable guy’.

That principle seems to make as much sense theoretically as the generate isolation one mentioned earlier – depending on your preconceived notions and biases, you could forward either as reasonable explanations behind adopting a particular set-up or having preferences in the abstract for systems or profiles (which I personally have – that for touchline wingers).

A conclusion that I have drawn is that, while both are focused on the qualitative aspect, having narrower unstoppable guys is predicated on that to a greater extent, because you receive fewer positional positive externalities – this is not to say there are no positional benefits – as you will typically have the opponent defending more compactly (look at PSG vs Lille - Nuno Mendes was ridiculously free because of Neymar's magnetism), worsening wide coverage and allowing the full/wing-back the potential to rampage down the flank – but because that space is likely to exist, albeit to a lesser extent regardless – you begin to ponder, do I not want a specialist in that region (not to say full backs can’t be that, they are just less likely to be, and often there are skill-based trade-offs which increase as you descend down the footballing hierarchy. I posit there are fewer players like Theo Hernandez, Achraf Hakimi, Alphonso Davies than there are threatening 1v1 wingers). That being said, the wide winger needs to be able to dribble.

III.

I think there is moreover another spatial component as to why analytical types, who seek control and legibility prefer touchline wingers. The situations they find themselves in are more predictable because they are focused less on tight link-up in between the lines which requires improvisation around the opponents compact defence; non-patterned positional fluidity to adapt around ever-changing spatial circumstances, working around increased ‘contingency factors’ such as ricochets and split-second line breaking moments. A touchline winger receiving can be formulaic – middle third, the interiour player underlaps to create space centrally which requires filled by the opponent to prevent winger infiltration, which generates space backwards for the full back, who can then seek to switch play directly or indirectly to the far-side, where similar dynamics occur, just with gained territory, until the breakthrough is made, and more risks are taken in the final 3rd, because the risk/reward dynamics alter as you move closer to goal.  With an interior, because there are more opponents compacting quickly, you are relying more on the qualitative element possessed by the unstoppable guy, which means the coach has ‘less control’ due to decreased predictability, and thus for those who like planning in the abstract, and want to generate predictability, perhaps reasonably to better control games, there is perhaps an initial dispreference towards interior unstoppable guys. I suspect moreover, although I are delving into territory I am not too comfortable in, this is a fairly modern construct due to greater emphasis being placed on both vertical and horizontal compactness to limit the space available in the half-spaces. The touchline winger arose from the ashes of compact zonal marking – previously, placing players in high value regions where space was ample was axiomatic – there would be space to dribble and create centrally.

IV.

This now brings me to PSG: you have two of the greatest players ever in Neymar and Messi, who while lacking the explosive directness of their youth which allowed them to directly dribble at players, still possess unmatched tight dribbling and playmaking qualities – suited to the interior. They are wasted on the flanks typically as their actions are not high value enough relative to their qualities – they lack the burst of Sane or Dembele to beat a man and threaten directly inside and out, while using them a la, Grealish or Mahrez as magnetic forces is a waste of talent. Thus, you need them in the half-spaces. It is the imperative of the coach to work around that. And players of that level of talent are capable of receiving in conditions which seem difficult to your average player; they have such speed of thought and action that they can play the tightest 1-2’s and wriggle out of spaces which seem impossible, even to other world class players. While the analyst often seeks legibility, the outcome at the very least in the most abstract sense when dealing with Messi and Neymar is success – what they do works – which lowers risks and makes the game more about creating predictable circumstances where they can work their game altering magic, which you can rely upon, almost as a ‘system’.

Swinging back to personal preferences, whenever I see a team with good interiour wingers, my first thought is 3-4-3 which affords them the freedom to be consistently narrow due to the presence of high wing backs, who also possess the potential to stretch play through deeper runs. The narrower positioning then feeds into better positional fluidity and 1-touch interplay as the connections between the interiors is tight, granting them more creative freedom and potential to connect to amplify each other and build a socio-affective understanding. Broadly, when thinking what I would like to see a team do in possession – I look at their wingers – are they touchline or interiour players and build the system from there. And linking back to the concept altering perception of reality point – this is potentially due to being heavily influenced by Pep Confidential.

Referencing Pep Guardiola at Bayern, Martí Perarnau, in an interview with Adin Osmanbasic alludes to the concept that vertical positional play requires greater technical excellence than horizontal, and is thus more ambitious, because it focuses more on attacking space controlled by the opponent. Receiving and playing in between the lines is more difficult than receiving out wide or with the ball in front of you. This makes the task of an interior both difficult, and highly dangerous, because they are well positioned to catalyse a transition, for either team. Combinations become tighter and quicker in between the lines, requiring greater speed of thought and action.

“I want players who can make decisive moves in small spaces.”

– Johan Cruyff

This quote by Johan Cruyff encapsulates which is desired from an interior, particularly of the more attacking variety – while moreover, encapsulating this ideal, are Neymar and Messi. They attract players centrally through their magnetism, unbalance defensive lines vertically, then use their momentum and alien like agility to bend time and space to find gaps and open areas of space which seemed inaccessible to create chances in the most dangerous spaces for other, more human players, or themselves.

Time and space work differently for these types of players that that are spatially aware and technically gifted – they move the ball and themselves so quickly and intelligently, that having an abstract, rather than dynamic concept of space and time in relation to players does them an injustice. They can work with less, hence, less seems like more, generating time, which is what you want your unstoppable guys to have, and the more central they are, the better they can subsequently impact the game with that extra time they seem to possess. In the eternal words of Ray Hudson - Messi can enter a revolving door after you and exit it before you.

V.

Returning to more typical, albeit elite scenes, watching Rangers recently, the balance of profiles has been something that has impressed with me. 3-2 build-up created with asymmetric full backs. Borna Barišić comes inside and James Tavernier pushes higher. This allows a more interiour profile in Tom Lawrence to come inside, play alongside Tillman on the horizontal plane, a fantastic interiour with great spatial awareness and ingenuity in tight spaces while Tavernier and Kent are on the flanks. This suits a more direct runner like Kent well as he can isolate full backs and run at them from depth, while still receiving support to come inside from an under/overlapping Tillman. You have a fantastic attacking full back in Tavernier and an unstoppable guy in Kent. They play at differing depths defensively and on opposite flanks – however, you want them both to be the outside players in the attacking 5. So you must create balance within these constraints – somebody needs to be narrower on the left to connect to Kent and allow him isolation against the full back while nevertheless being accessible (wide centre back). While Tavernier is pushed high so needs cover in deeper regions, but high half-space occupation is required, hence the full back tucking in creates a chain effect of balancing (although there is a left-sided bias, because you’d rather Kent receives deep). No doubt Kent could play interior, but it doesn’t maximise his potential, especially as a transitional catalyst in this Rangers side. Essentially, I think Giovanni van Bronckhorst has successfully identified his ‘unstoppable guys’ and built around them well - you have one interiour winger to facilitate Tavernier and one auxiliary centre back to facilitate Kent.

In summation, when looking at what I think I team should play - I look firstly at their wingers and what type of situations they thrive in. Its more complex than that, and a poorly built squad can pose annoying conundrums where you have a good interiour midfielder and winger who like to play on the same side, or a winger and full back who are both better suited inside. I think it’s less of an issue however to push a full back inside deeper where they have more time and space and more simplified role with the game ahead of them and are in a more consolidated state where systematic instructions are more potent because of greater legibility. If you have a dribbly wide unstoppable guy, you work around that with the full backs and midfielders rather than vice versa. This may be overly rigid and highlight a pathology in my interpretive space from reading Pep Confidential but I think deciding whether your nominal wide players (your defensive wide players – Rangers attack in a 3-2-5 but defend in a 4-5-1, Kent and Lawrence are wide) are interiors or wide wingers is the key building point because misunderstanding their capabilities can cause serious transitional problems as the applicability of both skillsets is not always transferable. Some players are flexible and can do both almost equally proficiently which allows for more fluid interchanging with the first dynamic which comes to mind being Dejan Kulusevski and Emerson Royal; however this is no guarantee. This I suspect though is largely an aesthetic preference, which is grounded in belief that it is the best, of not wanting to see great direct players chucked inside when they could be engaging the opponent directly and attacking space.

VI. Addendum:

Much is said about universality and football requiring an increasingly broad range of skillsets to allow a more fluid playstyle. However, I guess what I have forwarded here is more specific recruitment process which seeks to maximise socio-affective relationships where players are placed alongside one another and both are in their ‘element’. This is something I think about most in relation to wide dynamics, perhaps because it is the area where isolation can be achieved, or more so, where space is less congested temporarily which creates more room for specialisation. In central areas I lean heavily towards universality – a concept embodied by the indefatigable Bernardo Silva. I want players who can interchange, provide support upon opposition adaptation which allows for consistently optimal distribution of players across space to create connections for progress. Somebody who in one moment can support the pivot by dropping deep and being press resistant and the next underlap to pose a threat via a cross. I think this is needed often to bypass opposing pressure then subsequently exploit the space, you need to be capable of operating in small spaces first and foremost – an abstract requirement rather than anything specific – from there, developments occur with regards to individuality. Is my love for categorising wingers a defect of ossifying a paradigm Pep encountered at Bayern? I think I have reasons, but are those just rationalisations of aesthetic preferences? Am I the dinosaur?

Centrally, when I encounter a press resistant 8, I place that above all else in formulating their role. This is related to my preference for 4-2-4 to 4-1-5 transitions which requires a dropping midfielder capable of resisting pressure then offering a threat in between the lines. When thinking of this vague profile, there are players at the zenith which occur to me: Bernardo, Thiago Alcântara and Frenkie de Jong. All are of course different – the most comfortable in attacking wide areas is Bernardo, the most progressive and direct dribbler is probably Frenkie, whilst the best long passer is Thiago. They all crucially share press resistance and comfortability behind or between the lines – they permit a fluid 6/8. With Thiago as he thrives at playing with the ball centrally rather than off ball movements, you are likely to use him beside an offensive full back, have him tuck deeper in the half-space and control play behind the lines, with the more penetrative option of pushing him up centrally when necessary. Importantly though, your game plan likely isn’t contingent on him underlapping for example. Bernardo conversely is somebody you want running behind defences and using his quick agile dribbling to manufacture space in addition to dropping deep to support build-up when necessary. He however perhaps lacks the creative passing of Frenkie or Thiago. Frenkie is perhaps the most ‘well-rounded’ and maybe this is why Erik ten Hag opted for a Frenkie oder nichts policy. He is more than an abstract role, a place filler, his individuality can change everything and is irreplaceable. You go from the abstract press resistant 6/8 to something much more. And there is something to be said about that, and how individuals interpretation of the roles once they meet the base requirement is key -  a system has essentials the players must fit, but equally, the players themselves interpret and offer supplementary benefits, some of which in combination are exceedingly valuable and unique that they almost create a new system, or alter the permutations of the framework. If you have x, you can do x, but x must be able to perform y, everyone on the shortlist requires y systematically. Or if you have a good player, they can do z, therefore the role must conform to the other constraints they place on the system through adapting the essentials of the role. I think in central areas, the importance of universality undermines the latter’s concerns, as you need intense pressers and players proficient in tight spaces. However, as my friend Luke reminds me, to achieve well-roundness you are often sacrificing specialisation because the level of quality at a given age/price level remains consistent, unless of course you unearth an undervalued gem. Thus, especially as you move down the financial totem pole, where Bernado’s and Frenkies are but a pipe dream, you must make trade-offs, and often consider not what the system can do for the players, but what the players can do for the system. Aresnal perhaps act in contradiction of that, focusing on profiles and connections rather than abstract player quality and adapting, and football generally can be considered to be moving more towards that model; however, particularly when a manager inherits a new side which isn’t ‘theirs’, adapting around constraints rather than stubbornly enforcing something that is not achievable for another two years is perhaps better. These things are all contextual; and planning with foresight is difficult when you don’t have the pull of elite Premier League clubs to guarantee a profile of manager in suiting with your vision holistically. Additionally, clubs outside the Premier League and elite bubble often need to make money from player sales which places greater emphasis on signing players with ability, and attempting to situate them in contexts where that shines through to potential suitors.

My issue here is in attempting to answer this question of preference abstractly – because it all is contextual – I have my preferences towards a more systematic approach, but equally as detailed, have flexibility within those preferences – having base blueprints of conceptual ideas I feel comfortable with, and buy into and adapting thereafter (Conte and de Zerbi). This is where I feel most comfortably currently, and its why I think building an abstract internal database of ‘your football’ is important. It does not have to be a unitary concept - but principles, or adaptions depending on profiles are important. Knowledge is finite, preferences are often arbitrary but unavoidable and to build towards anything significant, you have to sacrifice potential options to hone in elsewhere and create something you feel you have a specialism in. Hopefully my perception continually expands while nevertheless strengthening the core of de Zerbi, Conte and Guardiola.

I love football.